Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 91 to 101 of 101
  1. - Top - End - #91
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    GreatWyrmGold's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    In a castle under the sea
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Making an innocuously terrible class

    As with everything else in an RPG, versatility's utility depends heavily on how the game is designed (both by the original authors and by the GMs). But in general, if you're not deliberately trying to make versatility useful, it tends to be better to have a party of specialists.
    Which isn't too surprising. I mean, the civilizations which were essentially huge parties of specialists outcompeted the ones who were huge parties of generalists.
    I'm the GWG from Bay12 and a bunch of other places.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Blade Wolf View Post
    Ah, thank you very much GreatWyrmGold, you obviously live up to that name with your intelligence and wisdom with that post.
    Quotes, more

    Negative LA Assignment Thread
    The Tale of Demman, Second King of Ireland, a CKII AAR, won a WritAAR of the Week award. Winner of Villainous Competition 8
    Fanfic

    Avatar by Recaiden.

  2. - Top - End - #92
    Orc in the Playground
     
    Planetar

    Join Date
    Jun 2016

    Default Re: Making an innocuously terrible class

    Quote Originally Posted by Necroticplague View Post
    In almost every system I've seen, making a 'jack of all' usually falls within this category. A new player will go 'wow, they can do x&y&z&q? how is this not broken in its versatility?'. A more experienced one will go 'why would I want that when I'd rather have someone who does X, someone who does Y, someone who does Z, and someone who does Q'. Party play encourages specialization, so jacks either lag behind in use (if they're the only one in that roll), or are made redundant by someone better (where roles overlap). This is especially true if it's not possible to perform more than one role at a time (i.e, action economy, finite resources), so you're never really a hybrid, just a crappy substitute.
    There are a few systems out there which do tend to encourage versatility via diminishing returns, low ceilings, and sometimes having everything be indispensable. Savage Worlds is one which springs immediately to mind (although some of the particular settings not so much). Most characters within that system tend to have MAD like crazy, each point that you spend within a skill gets less and less powerful, and due to the low ceilings you usually wind up spreading out to a few different areas.

    EDIT: Although that's just skills, the edges are what makes the character and you usually want to focus on those.
    Last edited by Tinkerer; 2017-12-03 at 06:04 PM.
    Firm opponent of the one true path

  3. - Top - End - #93
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Knaight's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2008

    Default Re: Making an innocuously terrible class

    Quote Originally Posted by Tinkerer View Post
    There are a few systems out there which do tend to encourage versatility via diminishing returns, low ceilings, and sometimes having everything be indispensable. Savage Worlds is one which springs immediately to mind (although some of the particular settings not so much). Most characters within that system tend to have MAD like crazy, each point that you spend within a skill gets less and less powerful, and due to the low ceilings you usually wind up spreading out to a few different areas.
    There's more than a few - it's not uncommon in stat-skill systems for skills to get dramatically more expensive as they go up. Common formulas include skills costing N points to increase from N-1 to N, and skills costing 2^(N-1) points to increase from N-1 to N. You can have Piloting 6, or you can have Piloting 5, Firearms 4, Athletics 3, Survival 2, Diplomacy 1, and Science 1 for the same price. The latter is probably a more useful array most of the time.

  4. - Top - End - #94
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Guizonde's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    toulouse
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Making an innocuously terrible class

    Quote Originally Posted by Knaight View Post
    There's more than a few - it's not uncommon in stat-skill systems for skills to get dramatically more expensive as they go up. Common formulas include skills costing N points to increase from N-1 to N, and skills costing 2^(N-1) points to increase from N-1 to N. You can have Piloting 6, or you can have Piloting 5, Firearms 4, Athletics 3, Survival 2, Diplomacy 1, and Science 1 for the same price. The latter is probably a more useful array most of the time.
    i'll have to check with my dm, but that sounds strangely similar to rogue trader's advancement. all in all, i'll keep preaching versatility until between the party we cover all skills in that particular game... the dice gods have been clement towards violence, less so towards subtlety...
    regarding my choice of sustenance:
    Quote Originally Posted by Raimun View Post
    I'm going to judge you.
    My judgement is: That is awesome.
    Quote Originally Posted by DigoDragon View Post
    GM: “If it doesn't move and it should, use duct tape. If it moves and it shouldn't, use a shotgun.”
    dm is Miltonian, credit where credit is due.

  5. - Top - End - #95
    Halfling in the Playground
     
    ElfRogueGirl

    Join Date
    Aug 2015

    Default Re: Making an innocuously terrible class

    Quote Originally Posted by Anonymouswizard View Post
    There's already a large number of potential actions in any action situation, and I suffer from decision paralysis. Therefore having more options (or worse, not having some basic options because I don't have some ability, but that's rare) adds even more for me to consider, which makes my decision paralysis works.

    Or rather, abilities adds more options, and there's already a lot of them.
    I think I get what you're saying. It's similar to what Mark Rosewater calls "board complexity" in Magic: the Gathering—the more cards with relevant effects there are on the battlefield, the more mental load there is on the players and the more different places you have to remember to look for things to track.

    That makes perfect sense with your class preferences, too. The Champion is specifically designed to minimize both character-build decisions and abilities to track in combat, while the Battlemaster is designed to give lots of turn-by-turn resource management decisions to people who like that. Berserker Barbarians are similarly straightforward, for the reasons you outlined.

    Setting aside whether the class is underpowered, the Sorcerer has also historically been "Wizard, but with fewer choices". That's bad for its raw power level, but it's good for people who don't want to keep track of more spells, or decide what to prepare every day, or even worry about whether they should be constantly trying to find more spells for their spellbook. The addition of Sorcerer metamagic in 5e adds a wrinkle, but it sounds like it's not a problem for you.

    This also makes sense with this:

    I'm not completely against Stat-Powers systems if they leave skills and talents out of it [...]
    A purely stat-skill system with talents but no powers lets you calculate your bonuses up-front. In-game, you only have to care about (A) what's actually going on, and (B) how good you are at the various things you might think of doing. You only have to care about the one list of numbers, in other words.

    A pure stat-powers system with no skills/talents forces you to consider your mechanical options, but at least those are still the only things on your character sheet you have to worry about. You get a similar effect because the scope of things to think about at a given time is reduced, and they're all of basically the same type.

    Contrast something like a 5e Paladin, who gets to choose between normal attacks, Lay on Hands (X/day), prepared spells (X/day), Divine Smite (using a spell slot), various Channel Divinity options (1/rest), and the normal non-attack combat actions. That's not a problem for a lot of people, but having all these options and resources spread around the character sheet can get very overwhelming if that's not your thing.
    The Burning Plague - Miria, Halfling Rogue

  6. - Top - End - #96
    Orc in the Playground
     
    Planetar

    Join Date
    Jun 2016

    Default Re: Making an innocuously terrible class

    Quote Originally Posted by Knaight View Post
    There's more than a few - it's not uncommon in stat-skill systems for skills to get dramatically more expensive as they go up. Common formulas include skills costing N points to increase from N-1 to N, and skills costing 2^(N-1) points to increase from N-1 to N. You can have Piloting 6, or you can have Piloting 5, Firearms 4, Athletics 3, Survival 2, Diplomacy 1, and Science 1 for the same price. The latter is probably a more useful array most of the time.
    My apologies, I meant that there is a few which use all three methods. And it truly depends on the system, I can think of quite a few where (particularly for the piloting skill) specialization is still quite encouraged despite the increasing costs. To put it another way a system which has none of those 3 methods generally actively encourages over-specialization, a system which has 1 is generally fairly neutral, and a system which has 2 or more most likely actively discourages over-specialization. But that is a simplification.
    Firm opponent of the one true path

  7. - Top - End - #97
    Halfling in the Playground
     
    ElfRogueGirl

    Join Date
    Aug 2015

    Default Re: Making an innocuously terrible class

    Quote Originally Posted by Tinkerer View Post
    My apologies, I meant that there is a few which use all three methods. And it truly depends on the system, I can think of quite a few where (particularly for the piloting skill) specialization is still quite encouraged despite the increasing costs. To put it another way a system which has none of those 3 methods generally actively encourages over-specialization, a system which has 1 is generally fairly neutral, and a system which has 2 or more most likely actively discourages over-specialization. But that is a simplification.
    All this discussion of standard RPG components is giving me a lot more insight into why D&D put the specific classes and archetypes they chose into the starter set. Even though the system as a whole is heavily stat-power based, the prebuilt characters (at low levels) pretty well cover the extremes that you would expect to see within the system.

    The two Champion Fighters let the player more or less pretend they're in a pure stat-skill system, with emphasis on the stats. Straightforward.

    The Thief Rogue is also pretty much a stat-skill character, but with more emphasis on the skills and talents. Being a Halfling adds a few powers as well.

    The Cleric and Wizard, like all casters, are heavily stat-power characters from level 1, with the Wizard built as a High Elf to cram in even more powers (spells).

    (Obviously in 5e every character ends up accumulating a bunch of powers as they grow, and everybody engages with the skill system outside of combat. It's not the same as actually playing a pure stat-skill or stat-power system, but my point is the designers seem to have intentionally constructed the pre-built characters to be spread across the design space within the 5e system.)
    The Burning Plague - Miria, Halfling Rogue

  8. - Top - End - #98
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    DrowGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2013

    Default Re: Making an innocuously terrible class

    Quote Originally Posted by Cynthaer View Post
    All this discussion of standard RPG components is giving me a lot more insight into why D&D put the specific classes and archetypes they chose into the starter set. Even though the system as a whole is heavily stat-power based, the prebuilt characters (at low levels) pretty well cover the extremes that you would expect to see within the system.

    The two Champion Fighters let the player more or less pretend they're in a pure stat-skill system, with emphasis on the stats. Straightforward.

    The Thief Rogue is also pretty much a stat-skill character, but with more emphasis on the skills and talents. Being a Halfling adds a few powers as well.

    The Cleric and Wizard, like all casters, are heavily stat-power characters from level 1, with the Wizard built as a High Elf to cram in even more powers (spells).

    (Obviously in 5e every character ends up accumulating a bunch of powers as they grow, and everybody engages with the skill system outside of combat. It's not the same as actually playing a pure stat-skill or stat-power system, but my point is the designers seem to have intentionally constructed the pre-built characters to be spread across the design space within the 5e system.)
    Oh yeah, that’s entirely intentional. Building pre-gens to cover the spectrum allows the maximum amount of people with their varying play styles to find an option that suits them.
    Cookie Count: One

    Quote Originally Posted by digiman619 View Post
    Spoiler: True Facts
    Show

  9. - Top - End - #99
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    NinjaGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2013

    Default Re: Making an innocuously terrible class

    Quote Originally Posted by ATHATH View Post
    Yeah, but they're full casters. Even though their spell list is terrible, they still have access to Sanctified spells, spell list-expanding techniques, and the things on this list.
    That requires a fair level of op fu. If you stacked the same amount of cheese on a bard, you'd be close to Tier 1. If you stacked it on a Tier 1 caster, you're just showing off.

  10. - Top - End - #100
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Velaryon's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Making an innocuously terrible class

    Quote Originally Posted by GreatWyrmGold View Post
    As with everything else in an RPG, versatility's utility depends heavily on how the game is designed (both by the original authors and by the GMs). But in general, if you're not deliberately trying to make versatility useful, it tends to be better to have a party of specialists.
    Which isn't too surprising. I mean, the civilizations which were essentially huge parties of specialists outcompeted the ones who were huge parties of generalists.
    I think group size affects the utility of generalists vs. specialists as well. Not just in an RPG group, but in general. The more people you have, the smaller the spectrum of abilities you need each person to have. Since characters are generated with a finite amount of resources they can devote to their abilities (whether that's ability score points, skill ranks, other class features to choose, dots to put in different attributes, or whatever mechanism the RPG uses), having more characters allows each one to focus those resources on improving their areas of specialty.

    Conversely, in smaller groups the generalists will be advantaged because they allow the group to cover multiple different roles.

  11. - Top - End - #101
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    SolithKnightGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Right behind you!
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Making an innocuously terrible class

    Quote Originally Posted by GreatWyrmGold View Post
    As with everything else in an RPG, versatility's utility depends heavily on how the game is designed (both by the original authors and by the GMs). But in general, if you're not deliberately trying to make versatility useful, it tends to be better to have a party of specialists.
    That's largely because most tasks are generally designed for one person to do at a time. Even in combat most games push having a character focused on one thing.

    If you make #s matter more and/or actions be more situational, then going generalist is more viable as you can add to the competent # of people for non-combat and in combat pick the action which best fits the situation rather than just using your alpha tactic all the time.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •